Pledge of Allegiance BANNED at Melissa Bean Debate??

Originally posted by Snarf

Originally posted by eNumbra
Oh noes! He must be a secret anti-american muslim terrorist.

The pledge is a silly thing and should be done away with.

The pledge isn't about just the words, its about the desire to say them. If you're not loyal to your country, why don't you just leave?

I am loyal to my country; but I don't owe it an allegiance.

If my freedom and the freedom of others are infringed I will fight for them, not because I am American, not because Americans before me did so and certainly not because of any pledge, but because it's the right thing to do: because all men are born with the rights and liberties and only a handful of places on this earth recognize them.


Perhaps a history of the pledge would illustrate why it I disregard it.
en.wikipedia.org...

The original pledge, created in 1892 (that's right, it's been around for less than half as long as the country itself)

I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all

It was altered 4 times until "under god" was finally added in 1954

It stands nothing for the principles of the country and is therefore extraneous.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Champagne

 

wow. she didn't even laugh it off like a normal person or say 'ok now we will begin' she chose to lecture them like children about 'respecting' her. just silly. i don't care if it was planned or not. saying a 10 second pledge to the flag before a political debate is not nearly as disruptive or inappropriate then chastising the audience for saying the pledge.

I gave you a star for my favorite response on this thread because you got right to the heart of the issue.

The moderator could have laughed it off, or even said nothing. Instead, she chose the elitist liberal role of lecturing the other adults there as if they were intellectually "children" and she was intellectually the adult.

Pay attention to this. This is what liberals think of you, and what they think of themselves. Had enough of being looked down at and being talked down to?

You know the really hypocritical thing about all this is that liberals love to accuse conservatives of treating other people with disrespect while they live their lives doing the exact same thing.

reply to post by Champagne


Thanks for showing this. This broad feels "disrespected" which even isn't a word unless you invoke Ebonics?

I find it chilling that these local toads thought they had the right to pull an American citizen out of the audience of a public debate in a public place paid for by public money, simply because he was recording it.

I was happy as hell to see the audience reaction.

Funny how some people are wound up so tight over this.
Both sides of the argument are reduced to immature egotists.

She was wrong to get all self-righteous about the interruption, and protracted the issue by preaching about respect to the audience.

And the chest-beating audience; did they raise or lower a flag at this event? Where is it written that protocol dictates the recital of the pledge at this event?

What about the history of the pledge?

First; does anyone care that the pledge was written by a Socialist Christian?

Second; that it has no substantive role in the true foundation of this country; Constitutional or otherwise?

Third; that the compulsion to recite the pledge runs counter to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution?

People need to do more critical thinking about the origins and purpose of so-called nationalistic indoctrination.

Don't get me wrong, I get it, people are deeply invested in their belief systems, and the pledge symbolizes dedication to one's national identity, whatever that means.
I truly believe if you ask 100 different people what it means you'll get almost as many answers.
The hypocrisy is so deep it would take a dedicated and lengthy conversation to unwind it.

How about this: instead of the grandstanding, and the preaching of a bunch of hollow BS, why not go out and walk the walk, and to hell with the talk...it's just a bunch of hot wind these days anyway...let's see what you're really about, by the way you live your life, then we'll see if you're truly about "one nation...indivisible", and "liberty and justice for all"

reply to post by eNumbra


All this

You clearly don't understand the concepts of freedom and liberty. Unfortunately really, but I suppose its we Americans fault for setting bad examples by celebrating freedom by denigrating it with "Pledges of Allegiance" and talk of the "Homeland".

while your saying this

Oh noes! He must be a secret anti-american muslim terrorist. The pledge is a silly thing and should be done away with.

Accusing other people of not understanding anything, while speaking in ignorance on your own behalf......

Heres a hint, the guy in that video had NOTHING to do with any of it.......You clearly didnt watch the video, so its apparent that anything you have to say on this subject should be thrown out in its hypocrisy

I just came across some more information about the moderator. Isn't a moderator "supposed" to be moderate? Also, isn't debates "supposed" to be non partisan, so why did the debate not have moderators chosen from both officials choices. This is one thing I have noticed about the a LOT of the debates. The conservatives are not only debating their opponent, they are debating the moderators also.

Anyway, on the moderator-Kathy Tate-Bradish

Former Acorn worker-
Obama campaigner- my.barackobama.com...
Also this link- my.barackobama.com...
So, she was over in Kenya. Hmmm, whodathought.

Here is a nice blog that has dug up some information-yidwithlid.blogspot.com...

So tell me folks, The League of Women Voters is a Democrat Party organization so why are THEY moderating a debate? Kinda like debating against the moderator. Hmmm. Questions, questions, questions.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Heres a hint, the guy in that video had NOTHING to do with any of it.......You clearly didnt watch the video, so its apparent that anything you have to say on this subject should be thrown out in its hypocrisy

First line was sarcasm, and I mistyped he instead of she.


My bad.

...that was just plain old fascist nationalism...

...it might have appeared to be spontaneous but it was orchestrated by a few that knew they could depend upon the programming of the many who would follow suit without hestitation...

...and people wonder why so many american kids are pathological bullies and why so many just wander around waiting to be a good little parrot to any group that'll accept them...

...there is NOTHING within the constitution that says you have a right to interrupt a gathering... doing so just makes you look like an ignorant bully who doesnt give a damn about anyone's rights...

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by Champagne

 

Thanks for showing this. This broad feels "disrespected" which even isn't a word unless you invoke Ebonics?

Since when is disrespected not a word?

from the article:

The reaction by the condescending moderator was that she was “offended”. Offended by the Pledge?

please. clearly she was offended by the audience not respecting her as moderator, not because she was offended by the PoA.. Call her a stuffy beureaurat, call her a slave to Robert's Rules of Order (how many of you even know what that is??). but dont claim she was offended by the Pledge. That's stupid.

reply to post by Wyn Hawks

...that was just plain old fascist nationalism...

whaa???? every nation has chants and pledges and anthems. the nazis didn't invent patriotism. infact i'm pretty sure our pledge was around before fascism existed.

...it might have appeared to be spontaneous but it was orchestrated by a few that knew they could depend upon the programming of the many who would follow suit without hestitation...

so the few with the nefarious plot of saying the pledge of allegience before a political debate coerced the poor mindless dolts into saying it with them. i get it now. muahahahahaha.

Text ...and people wonder why so many american kids are pathological bullies and why so many just wander around waiting to be a good little parrot to any group that'll accept them...

right..... the pledge of allegience causes children to beat up other children and disrespect authority. if you ask me we need to teach children to stop caring about anything, then they'll treat eachother with kindness. chanting OB-A-MA, OB-A-MA OB-A-MA, is much more civilized and less like fascism then pledging allegience to a constitutional republic's flag will ever be. i propose we switch to that.

...there is NOTHING within the constitution that says you have a right to interrupt a gathering... doing so just makes you look like an ignorant bully who doesnt give a damn about anyone's rights...

there's nothing in the constitution that says you have a right to take a pee, or to grow a garden, or to sleep in on sundays. i find it funny that you like to say the audience has no right to participate in political speech in a public forum (OH, btw, actually, yea...the constitution does protect exactly the kind of thing they did). Its not against the law to interrupt a speaker at a public gathering, especially with the pledge of allegience.

ignorant bully? what did they bully her into doing or not doing? they said the pledge and sat back down or walked out. i'm amiss here. where you bullied as a child? it seems like anyone you disagree with, no matter how harmless, is a "bully"....

and i guess the irony comes full circle. what do you mean "who doesn't give a damn about anyone's rights"???? who's rights were violated? so there's no constitutional right to interrupt someone....but there is a constitutional right to not be interrupted.

don't waste your time replying to this post, i'm envoking my constitutional right to not be bothered with counter-arguments or anything that makes me feel uncomfortable, YOU BULLY!

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
I just came across some more information about the moderator. Isn't a moderator "supposed" to be moderate?

Can you provide examples of her not moderating?

Thank you in advance!

Also, isn't debates "supposed" to be non partisan, so why did the debate not have moderators chosen from both officials choices. This is one thing I have noticed about the a LOT of the debates. The conservatives are not only debating their opponent, they are debating the moderators also.

Well, first of all, the candidates are free to choose to participate in the debate or not. It is not a requirement. If your favored candidates want to participate in a debate moderated by Dick Armey or Thomas Sowell, and can get their opponents to participate, then that debate could occur as well.

But also, I think you misunderstand what a moderator does. If a debater states something untrue, for example, it is well-within a moderators control to refute said mis-speak. Doing so doesn't make one partisan.

Have you any experience in debating?

Again, can you point out these examples of 'partisan' moderating?

So tell me folks, The League of Women Voters is a Democrat Party organization so why are THEY moderating a debate? Kinda like debating against the moderator. Hmmm. Questions, questions, questions.

The League of Woman Voters is NOT a Democrat Party organization. That is an untruth.

I addition, the LWV is hosting the debate. Candidates participate in the debate of their free will. They can choose to enter debate hosted by someone else anytime they choose. There is no law, nor conspiracy, to force 'conservatives' to participate in any specific debate. Generally, there are multiple debates with different moderators from different sides of the spectrum.

It sounds to me like you are trying to make this into something it clearly isn't. And it's truly disappointing that so many mindlessly starred your post without even bothering to see if any of it was remotely true.

Perhaps the REAL CONSPIRACY is to distract from the substance of the debate with this sort of ridiculous non-issue blown up into partisan fertilizer.

The League of Women Voters is a non-partisan (with respect to candidates and parties) organization of women and men formed in 1920 and dedicated to the principles of self-government established by the Constitution of the United States. The League works to promote political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government. Membership is open to all. For more information on the state League, visit www.lwv.ma.org.

quote source

www.wickedlocal.com...

reply to post by justadood


Really? Did you even go to any of the links I posted?

So that moderator is NOT a Democrat? Yes and their all kinds of organizations that call themselves non partisan and are actually partisan. Whodathought?

What I was stating about debating, the BEST format is to have two chosen moderators from each opposing side.

Or do you really think you are going to find a non partisan in this day and age when it comes to politics?

Well, I suppose you could bring up as an example as a RINO and a Dem debating. Then it would at least be two of the same side.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower


So that moderator is NOT a Democrat? Yes and their all kinds of organizations that call themselves non partisan and are actually partisan. Whodathought?

Now your backtracking. Your claim was that the LWV was a "Democrat organization". This isn't 't true. I merely told yu it wasn't true so you could avoid making such a mistake in the future.

]What I was stating about debating, the BEST format is to have two chosen moderators from each opposing side.

Or do you really think you are going to find a non partisan in this day and age when it comes to politics?

Actually, what I argued was debates are regularly hosted by someone with a 'lean' in one direction or another. The debaters are free to chose to not participate in the debate if they feel the moderator doesnt suit their interests. In addition, there are often several debates, with moderators from various 'sides' in different ones, to create the sort of balance you are referring to.

You seem to think there was some sort of conspiracy to get a 'liberal' moderator, but you fail to understand that ALL the participants in the debate chose to accept an invitation to this debate. If they felt the moderator was unfair, they shouldn't have chosen, of their own free will, to participate in the forum. They could easily have sought out a forum more conducive to their demographic. Its a fee country.

I suspect that the reality is, you preferred candidate performed poorly in the debate, so you are choosing to complain about 'moderation' to distract from this inconvenient problem. If your candidate had done well, I would think such inconsequential maters would be secondary to the substance of the debate.

reply to post by justadood


Actually, I find what happened here and in other instances where the blatant leaning of the moderator helps the conservatives.

Heck, even the left admits the pariah they have ATTACKED constantly, O' Donnell won her debates. Even with the blatant leaning of the moderators.

I am not backtracking on the League of Women Voters. I just find it ironic that those that lead these organizations for some unknown reason all lean Democrat. Hmmm, must be another instance of coincidence or only correlation instead of causal, I suppose? Kinda like the use of AGW evidence.

On the one hand, the left throws out all kinds of correlative evidence to push their agenda, yet NO ONE is allowed to use the same evidence.

Intellectual dishonesty I guess.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by justadood

 

Actually, I find what happened here and in other instances where the blatant leaning of the moderator helps the conservatives.

Well, that's a complete turnaround from your claim that this 'partisan' moderator ruined the debate.

I am not backtracking on the League of Women Voters. I just find it ironic that those that lead these organizations for some unknown reason all lean Democrat. Hmmm, must be another instance of coincidence or only correlation instead of causal, I suppose? Kinda like the use of AGW evidence.

Look, you made a claim that was false. I corrected you. I did not claim the moderator wasn't partisan. I said the LWV is not a 'Democrat Organization', as you asserted.

In addition, what about your claims that the moderator was 'unfair'? Why have you STILL not offered any evidence to support this claim? Backing away from that specious claim as well, now?

On the one hand, the left throws out all kinds of correlative evidence to push their agenda, yet NO ONE is allowed to use the same evidence.

Can you clarify that vague statement? What 'evidence'?

reply to post by Champagne


The pledge of allegiance was created by a socialist to promote federal government supremacy over states rights.

True story.

Look it up.

I would refuse to say it as well.

Why would anyone pledge allegiance to a flag? Let alone the flag of a criminally corrupt nation whose government haws declared war upon its citizens.

I think it's beyond sad that this gets more attention than the actual content of the discussion. There's so many issues in the US, and this bull# gets more attention than the important issues. People are blinded by over-the-top patriotism and it clouds their eyes from seeing the real issues.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I think it's beyond sad that this gets more attention than the actual content of the discussion. There's so many issues in the US, and this bull# gets more attention than the important issues. People are blinded by over-the-top patriotism and it clouds their eyes from seeing the real issues.

IT is BY DESIGN that this petty, inconsequential issue gets more attention than the substance of the debate.

because SUBSTANCE is the antithesis of partisanship. And partisanship is what keeps the rubes ignorant.

When people actually debate the issues, truth is bound to come out. Cant have that.

Better claim the debt was rigged by sociocommunazis

reply to post by justadood


And that's exactly the main issue in the US. Just look at the other thread where people get all angry about Obama not mentioning "the creator" in one of his speeches. Not a single person in that thread (!!!) addressed any other content in the speech!

Like mindless zombies, and really hard to understand for a lot of people from abroad. Like I said, so many issues (economy, war, deficit, unemployment, oil spill, etc.) yet if you watch the news, and hear people talk, they mostly focus on the unimportant stuff.

The radical Christian preacher in Florida is another example. Why did people even talk about him, why did the news organizations bother reporting his actions. He's clearly a total lunatic who's mother dropped him on the head when he was born...so when did the media start giving retards airtime during NEWS SHOWS! Why did the White House feel the need to react at all other than saying "LOL, crazy old man"? It wasn't important news! They could have brought specials about how experts think unemployment could be reduced, or how the economy could be jump started again. THAT would have been important and interesting stuff.

Instead we get blasted by idiots like Beck who are nothing but conservative tele-preachers in disguise. So not only do we get blasted by unimportant stuff like mentioning "the creator" in a speech or not, but now religion is used too to control the masses. And people are so blindly patriotic that they buy into this crap.

Sometimes you just wanna slap those people and tell them to WAKE UP!! As long as that doesn't happen, nothing will change no matter which party's in power. And I'm not talking about some crazy revolution like some idiots with a gun rack and too much testosterone propose. All they need to do is listen to CONTENT again rather than the wrapping of the message. Don't see it happen anytime soon though judging from a lot of posts on here and elsewhere...